Siew Kum Hong: "appropriate thing is to avoid leaving any room for doubt"

[SneeringTree]

Pritam should have attributed the source- regardless the permission given to him by the original author. But CSM's post on Facebook is very clear about the fact that the post was written by someone else. The phrase "including the following" is there for this explicit reason. Only people with poor comprehension skills cannot see that.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

SKH's just TOC leader on paper and name lender - don't even thinks he knows what TOC is putting up or up to.

I'm sure SKH is not just a figure head. He's liable should TOC post anything inflammatory so has some stake in the content.

 

[mesmerised]

If we want to stretch this what about all the speeches written for the politician office holders by civil servants...are these politicians to disclose that what was expressed are not their own original thoughts?

Interesting that there is a contest for " ownership " of views written online or otherwise . The PAP politicians deliver highly orchestrated Q&A sessions in parliament for more than 45 years. And the rationale is: whatever the writer wrote will be nothing until it was uttered by the person in position of authority. So, I can write a speech for someone and a quote from it can be lifted and posted on the Walls of a building .. But the ownership of that quote still belongs to the person who delivered the speech.

Unless a particular blogger has explicitly stated that whatever is written in his page is "copyrighted" and is willing to put his contact data for those wanting to seek permission to copy or repost their "works", then one should just feel happy that their views are "borrowed and echoed " by others. If one is so concerned about others " profiting " from their wisdom, then they should " protect their interests" accordingly and make it known clearly.

 

[captainxerox]

Pritam should have attributed the source- regardless the permission given to him by the original author. But CSM's post on Facebook is very clear about the fact that the post was written by someone else. The phrase "including the following" is there for this explicit reason. Only people with poor comprehension skills cannot see that.

the blog that pritam took from, must be wp ib blog or someone pritam knows, that's why the blgger says publicly is alright, when pritam self-pwned. curious to know if permission was given before or after pritam self-pwned.

imagine if pritam took from a total stranger-blogger and if that stranger is not friendly to wp, surely that stranger-blogger would complain plagiarism and no permission given, all the way till the next ge.

 

[freedalas]

I don't mind a politicians to use another person article as basis of argument once permission is sought. Most importantly what was written must be sensible for digestion and discussion and truly reflect the ground sentiment.

On the other hand, some PAP politician who think their mind is original and came out with lot of craps and expected other people to digest - eg Mee-Siam-Mai -Hum, chillie bring rains - very orginal.

Agree absolutely with you and to add on to what you said, many of the changes to the policies now and proposals we are hearing from the Ministers and MPs are the original ideas of the people.

In fact, these are the very things that the people had been telling the PAP for umpteen years and it's only after GE2011 setback that they are now picking them up. But what's despicable of the PAP is they articulate it in Parliament as if they are the ones that observed certain undesirable trends or circumstances and are the ones that are coming up with original ideas.

It's like a son who has been telling his father for years that his allowances are insufficient for him to buy school books, take bus, eat 3 meals and to go to the doctor when sick. Yet the father chose to ignore him and only after noticing that his son prefers to spend more time with his neighbor's father and respect him as his real father instead, that he started to get worry and start paying attention to his son's problems. But the worst thing is he now tells his son that he has observed that he's having problems with his school results, has to walk to school sometimes, don't see a doctor even when sick and eat only instant noodles. And therefore he will be increasing his allowances. In other words, whatever problems that the people had been telling to the PAP and the suggested remediary measures, the PAP is now acting as if they are the one to notice the problems and are coming with various ways to address them (with the very solutions that people had been suggesting to them for years!)